BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/11/90)
There have been messages here in which some people have complained
about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and
on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0. My question is: why wasn't this
addressed in AmigaOS2.0?
In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention
of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of
a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a
device, software development would have been a hundred times easier,
because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and
receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to
the Intuition device and receiving information from it.
The only problem with the idea of making Intuition a device is speed.
The device would have to receive codes from a program, and translate them
into the proper calls to the main Intuition routines. However, with
the advent of the A3000, I don't think speed is much of a problem anymore.
The big thing about this idea is that it can still be done. There
is absolutely no reason why this Intuition device could not still be
written. Existing programs would continue to call the Intuition routines
directly, but future programs could use the Intuition device instead,
speeding development of future software.
If Commodore will not produce this Intuition device, I wish some
other enterprising Amiga developer would. This would be a great boost
to the Amiga, and would constitute the first major addition to the Amiga's
OS since the Amiga first came out five years ago. (As of now, all of
the Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 -- consist of large
numbers of minor changes, with no really big changes)
-MB-ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) (09/11/90)
In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu writes: > There have been messages here in which some people have complained >about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and >on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0. My question is: why wasn't this >addressed in AmigaOS2.0? David Junod (CATS) is working on some tools to simplify the programming of the machine. Hopefully this will make the programmers job easier. >...Had Intuition been made a >device, software development would have been a hundred times easier, I don't see how this follows. Programming intuition would have been about the same if it were a device, except calls would have been DoIO() instead of OpenWindow(). I personally find the OpenWindow() type of interface clearer than filling in a structure and calling DoIO()/SendIO(). Each to his/her own, I guess. Could you explain how making intuition a device would simplify the programming task? -- -- Ken Farinsky - CATS - (215) 431-9421 - Commodore Business Machines uucp: ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken bix: kfarinsky
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/11/90)
G'day,
{Disclaimer: I haven't even seen the programming environment for OS 2.0.}
MB> In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu
MB> (Marc Barrett) writes:
MB> There have been messages here in which some people have complained about
MB> how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and on IBM &
MB> clones under Windows 3.0. My question is: why wasn't this addressed in
MB> AmigaOS 2.0?
Not a flame here...questions. There were a lot of changes that make up OS 2.0,
many seem to be related to providing the basic building blocks for easier s/w
development. Principally I recall the new gadget stuff and a superset(?) of it
.the BOOPSI architecture they invented for OS 2.0.
Perhaps it is still early days to see whether s/w development will be enhanced
and easier with these devlopments.
So my questions.
Are developers happier with s/w development under OS 2.0 ?
What is missing that's make s/w development easier/better?
How do NeXT and Windows 3.0 programmers have it easier? (no flames please)
I read on the net that the NeXT has an easy to use Interface Builder. Perhaps
if Ali Ozer (sp?) is reading this he might describe it a little?
MB> In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention
MB> of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of
MB> a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a
MB> device, software development would have been a hundred times easier,
MB> because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and
MB> receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to
MB> the Intuition device and receiving information from it.
I never understood (and still don't now Marc) what RJ meant by those remarks.
Can anyone fill in a little bit more here?
MB> [...further discussion deleted. I'll leave these points to others...]
MB> -MB-
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.rick@tmiuv0.uucp (09/11/90)
In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > There have been messages here in which some people have complained > about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and > on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0. Gee, I've worked with Windows, and it isn't any easier. In fact, it's a damned nuisance! Maybe I'm just weird. > My question is: why wasn't this > addressed in AmigaOS2.0? I _like_ developing for the Amiga. It's more fun than almost any other system I've worked with (including Macs, PClones, Vaxen, Unix, Xerox, and a host of others). [...] > The only problem with the idea of making Intuition a device is speed. > The device would have to receive codes from a program, and translate them > into the proper calls to the main Intuition routines. However, with > the advent of the A3000, I don't think speed is much of a problem anymore. Bingo. Speed is the critical thing. Intuition has to do LOTS of things, including redrawing screens, watching the mouse and keyboard, updating various system lists and much, much more (sound like a K-Tel commercial?). Devices are nifty for single-threaded items like disks, tapes, etc. They are _not_ appropriate for multi-threaded items like screen displays and such. Why do you think Windows is still single threaded? Oh, sure, they may say it's multitasking, but it isn't (to my way of thinking at least). This is also a complaint with X-Windows. It is commonly implemented in a manner similar to a device, complete with the speed penalties. [...] > If Commodore will not produce this Intuition device, I wish some > other enterprising Amiga developer would. This would be a great boost > to the Amiga, and would constitute the first major addition to the Amiga's > OS since the Amiga first came out five years ago. (As of now, all of > the Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 -- consist of large > numbers of minor changes, with no really big changes) Which cave have you been hiding in? 2.0 does not "consist of large numbers of minor changes". It is a major rewrite. BCPL is gone. ARexx is resident. Windows are cleaner and faster. The libraries are more robust. Many bugs have been killed. Using your criteria, it would appear that anything that is evolutionary is a minor change. Like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Testarossa. Hey, it's still just a car, no? > > > -MB- [getting off my soapbox now] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens, Technology Marketing Incorporated ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) (Opinions are mine. No one listens to me here anyway.) "Lead, follow, or get the h*ll out of the way!" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
uphwk@TERRA.OSCS.MONTANA.EDU (Bill Kinnersley) (09/12/90)
[In "An Intuition.device?" <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>,
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) said:]
:
: In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention
:of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of
:a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a
:device, software development would have been a hundred times easier,
:because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and
:receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to
:the Intuition device and receiving information from it.
:
(Inhale ................)
(Exhale.................)
(Pause to look out the window, and reflect that the sun is still shining,
the grass is green, and that Usenet postings like this are here and gone,
and cannot affect the really important things in life...)
OK.
Marc, let me just say that making Intuition a library rather than a device
was probably one of the wisest decisions the original Amiga developers made.
I can't say any more without starting to FLA... (no, stop.)
--
--Bill Kinnersley
Physics Department Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717
INTERNET: uphwk@terra.oscs.montana.edu BITNET: UPHWK@MTSUNIX1
226 Transfer complete.jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) (09/12/90)
Yes, but maybe if intuition was a device it would be now possible to
run it thru a network (for example) ... But OK, at the time it wasn't
obvious. And it is much more easier to program with intuition as a library
!!!
Having intuition as a device wouldn't give you easier programming. But
it's true that a good interface builder on the Amiga would be a great
help. For ages the only solution was to use Power-Windows. The first
version were full of bugs and had lot of limitations (like: I don't want
you to use the extra lines on a PAL machine). And the new version is still
full of bugs (you somtimes have to realy fight with it to avoid the guru
when generating the code !!).
Now K-Windows must be available, I didn't see it yet, so I won't
comment.
JNMd6b@psuecl.bitnet (09/12/90)
In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Marc Barrett <BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu> writes: > In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention > of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of > a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a Sure, and you could turn all the devices into libraries, but why? It's pointless. Personally, I don't find Intuition "hard" to program at all; in fact, I think it's very easy to program (for the things I need it to do. I don't claim to know your needs). And the major complaints people have had (no standard file requester comes to mind) have been solved in 2.0 (obviously this is not evident if you just run old software under 2.0). -- Dan Babcock
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (09/12/90)
In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > There have been messages here in which some people have complained >about how much easier it is to develop software under on the NeXT and >on IBM & clones under Windows 3.0. My question is: why wasn't this >addressed in AmigaOS2.0? This area HAS been addressed with a significant and coordinated effort in 2.0. Here are some examples: Tag-based OpenScreen and OpenWindow, Many new DOS calls, including pattern match, Standard file requester, Standard font requester, Gadget toolkit including menus, scrolling lists, mutually exclusive gadgets, "boopsi" gadget classes, etc. I might also add that the guys who put together the examples for the 1.3 Rom Kernal Manuals went to great lengths to ensure that they worked as intended. People learning from the 1.3 RKMs have it a lot easier than those who had to work from the 1.1 or 1.0 (or earlier) volumes. > In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention >of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of >a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a >device, software development would have been a hundred times easier, >because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and >receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to >the Intuition device and receiving information from it. I don't see how calling a device is easier than calling a library. There are many other issues too, even if it were a good idea. How much slower would it run, if at all? How much more ROM space and programmer effort would it take? Would we rather spend that ROM space and programmer time somewhere else? (I keep hearing many suggestions for enhancements, and I can only assume that most folks would like to see effort go "somewhere else") > The big thing about this idea is that it can still be done. There >is absolutely no reason why this Intuition device could not still be >written. Existing programs would continue to call the Intuition routines >directly, but future programs could use the Intuition device instead, >speeding development of future software. Perhaps there is no reason why it couldn't be done. However, there would have to be compelling reasons to do it. I don't think you've presented any. > If Commodore will not produce this Intuition device, I wish some >other enterprising Amiga developer would. This would be a great boost >to the Amiga, and would constitute the first major addition to the Amiga's >OS since the Amiga first came out five years ago. (As of now, all of >the Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 -- consist of large >numbers of minor changes, with no really big changes) I'm sorry you feel that 2.0 consists of "large numbers of minor changes". Fortunately for the rest of us, you are in the minority. There is a lot of excitement about 2.0, precisely because it represents a very significant improvement over 1.3. > -MB- Peter -- Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. "Very strange... the window is broken on both sides."
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (09/12/90)
In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention >of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of >a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a >device, software development would have been a hundred times easier, >because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and >receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to >the Intuition device and receiving information from it. Most times, Mister MB does not know what he's talking about. User input IS done by receiving information about input events, and (some) actions like opening windows and screens are done by passing the intuition task messages to do so. Then asking for mouse information is polling whereas a multi-tasking friendly program is event driven. And then I don't think that sending codes by an application will make software development easier than just calling a system routine that does this. Actually this is a question for purists (of message passing systems). Maybe MB likes to use the X window system on the X protocol level. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
janhen@wn2.sci.kun.nl (Jan Hendrikx) (09/12/90)
In article <14358@cbmvax.commodore.com> peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention >>of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of >>a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a >>device, software development would have been a hundred times easier, >>because thing like opening screens and windows, creating menu items, and >>receiving mouse input from the user would be done by passing codes to >>the Intuition device and receiving information from it. > >I don't see how calling a device is easier than calling a library. There >are many other issues too, even if it were a good idea. How much slower >would it run, if at all? How much more ROM space and programmer effort >would it take? Would we rather spend that ROM space and programmer time >somewhere else? (I keep hearing many suggestions for enhancements, and >I can only assume that most folks would like to see effort go "somewhere else") (but many people said essentially the same thing) I happen to remember having read essentially the same thing as MB has. The reason _I_ remember a device would have been easier to program _for RJ Mical_, who initially wrote the thing, was there would be far less synchronisation problems. There seemed to be a lot of those, at least until 1.2. If Intuition were a device with associated task, this task could easily serialize operations that would interfere if executed interleaved. At least that is what I understood. -- Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert via janhen@sci.kun.nl How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (09/12/90)
In article <1032@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) says: >How do NeXT and Windows 3.0 programmers have it easier? (no flames please) >I read on the net that the NeXT has an easy to use Interface Builder. Perhaps I don't believe that Windows 3.0 is much easier, but the Interface Builder seems very nice (but then, I've only read about it 8-). With IB, you build an interface like so: Call up a program almost like a paint program that has windows, buttons, sliders, string gadgets, and so on as its basic elements. You create a window for your new application by dragging one from the palette onto the main NeXT screen. You add some buttons, and give them names and so on. Need a string gadget, fine, where do you want it, and how big should it be. Drag. Resize. Oops, that buttons in the way, maybe over here and a little bigger. When you are finished, IB creates the Obj-C source code (an OO dialect of C--much more elegant than C++ but more differnet from regular C) that will generate the interface you just designed. It has very easy to use hooks into it for the guts of the application to use. That is, you write the program that reacts when a user pushes a button or selcts a string gadget, and also tell the interface how to respond in return. Like I say, it looks to be pretty neat. I read comp.sys.next, and people there seem to be at least fairly satisfied with it most of the time, and version 2.0 is about out. BTW, an academic article in IEEE Software, reviewing the "four generations" of User Interface Management Systems currently available says something to the effect of there being few real 4th generation systems, even in the research labs, but NeXT Step and its Interface Builder at least partially qualify. Footnote. While not as widely used as C++ or Smalltalk, Obj-C seems like a really good way to go, especially since it is sort of the core language of NeXT. With some sort of interface layer between NeXTSTeP and Intuition, I can even imagine NeXT applications porting easily to Amiga 3000. The Amiga would make a good little sister to NeXT. lee
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (09/13/90)
In article <20596.26ed0909@psuecl.bitnet> d6b@psuecl.bitnet writes: >In article <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, Marc Barrett <BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu> writes: >> In some of his speeches, RJ Mical has told about how it was the intention >> of the original Amiga OS developers to make Intuition a device instead of >> a collection of routines (as it is now). Had Intuition been made a > >Sure, and you could turn all the devices into libraries, but why? It's >pointless. If the Intuition interface had been a .device, then redirecting that device to different display hardware may have been easier. This is not for certain; it depends on the level of abstraction RJ would have used by the intuition.device. I doubt seriously that it would have made programming any easier. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com (W. John Guineau) (09/14/90)
On a related subject, what would it take to get Intuition running on a frame buffer like the (so far elusive :-) Video Toaster? This would allow Intuition to run on say a 24 bit display! -- W. John Guineau guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Marlboro MA. 01752 "Without a noise, without my pride, I reach out from the Inside" - Peter Gabriel
pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) (09/14/90)
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: >In article <1032@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au >(Lou Cavallo) says: >>How do NeXT and Windows 3.0 programmers have it easier? (no flames please) >>I read on the net that the NeXT has an easy to use Interface Builder. Perhaps >I don't believe that Windows 3.0 is much easier, but the Interface Builder >seems very nice (but then, I've only read about it 8-). With IB, you build >an interface like so: Call up a program almost like a paint program that has >windows, buttons, sliders, string gadgets, and so on as its basic elements. >You create a window for your new application by dragging one from the >palette onto the main NeXT screen. You add some buttons, and give them >names and so on. Need a string gadget, fine, where do you want it, and how >big should it be. Drag. Resize. Oops, that buttons in the way, maybe over >here and a little bigger. Sounds like Power Windows for the Amiga except Power Windows supports a few more languages. Power Windows is made by Inovatronics, I do not represent them, but I do recommend -all- their products highly. Has anyone heard if they are doing a version for OS 2.0? > lee "Mario was standing there stark naked and drunk. He had been fighting with Princess again. ''Where the hell have you hidden the shrooms??'' he screamed." -- "Jump! How High?: My Life With Mario" By Luigi ==== Pete Ashdown ==== pashdown@esunix ==== ...utah-cs!esunix!pashdown ====
utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis) (09/20/90)
In article <2315@bambam.UUCP> pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) writes: >UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: [...about how the Interface Builder works on the NeXT.] > >Sounds like Power Windows for the Amiga except Power Windows supports a few >more languages. Power Windows is made by Inovatronics, I do not represent >them, but I do recommend -all- their products highly. Has anyone heard if >they are doing a version for OS 2.0? Yes, it does sound like it, but it doesn't look like it, and it sure as heck doesn't work like it. Try putting good looking borders on gadgets with PowerWindows, or try making you menu's text something other that auto-formatting. Here's a good one--try making an array of gadgets line up with equal spacing. You can do it, but you have to really want it bad. With IB, you just (let me fire up IB here...) hold down the Alternate key while you drag the gadget's drag handle. Presto, an array of identical gadgets show up. You can resize individual gadgets or resize the whole group at once. The gadgets are already there? No problem. Select them all (group selection) and choose Make Row, or Make Column. You want 'em the same size? Choose Same Size. With PW, you have to be pretty careful to make sure things will "make sense" to intuition. With IB, it's darned near impossible to do something stupid. Don't get me wrong, I use PW a lot. But every time I do I think the best use for PW would be to use it to rewrite PW. The problem with PW is that it is just good enough so that is isn't ever quite worth the effort to rewrite it. But it sure could be better. _____ | Todd M. Lewis Disclaimer: If you want my employer's ||\/| utoddl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu ideas, you'll have to || || utoddl@ecsvax.bitnet, @unc.bitnet _buy_ them. | || utoddl@next1.mscre.unc.edu |___ ("Prgrms wtht cmmnts r lk sntncs wtht vwls." --TML)
stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) (09/21/90)
In article <2315@bambam.UUCP> pashdown@shotput.es.com@bambam.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) writes: > >Sounds like Power Windows for the Amiga except Power Windows supports a few >more languages. Power Windows is made by Inovatronics, I do not represent >them, but I do recommend -all- their products highly. Has anyone heard if >they are doing a version for OS 2.0? > And if they're not, we need to start a campaign of letter writing to convince them that it would be a good idea. They make GREAT packages, very useful to programmers interested in programming Amiga interfaces. -- Greg Stelmack -- Email: stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu -- USmail: USF Box 1510, Tampa, FL 33620-1510 -- Amiga: the only way to compute!